This appeal has been filed U/S-15 of Consumer protection Act 1986(Herein after called the Act) against impugned order passed by Learned District C.D.R, Commission, Sambalpur in C.C. No. 21/2009. The parties are referred in complaint case may be read as same in this appeal for convenience.
2. The case of the complainant in nut-shell is that the Complainant has purchased a Tata ACE vehicle bearing Engine No. 2TSJ050505ARZS00536 and Chassis No. 445010ARV0112 Vide Regd. No. OR-15-0488 from the O.Ps by obtaining loan from Cholamandalam Financial Company .The complainant alleges that soon after the purchase of the vehicle it gave problem of leakage of engine oil and mileage.
The complainant has brought the said vehicle in question to the work shop on 27-06-2008 and 27-11-2008 and availed the service for fist and 2nd service. However, when the complainant brought the vehicle to the work shop of O.P No.1 on 15-12-2008 with starting problem, it was observed that the engine was seized due to less engine oil for which the OP asked for payment of repair as normal warranty of the vehicle was rejected. The complainant further alleged that the vehicle was giving oil leakage problem from the engine from the very beginning and it is the duty of the O.P to repair / replace the same free of charge. As per terms of warranty, repair / replace is to be done free of charge without having any cost of parts of labor charge if the customer will avail the service at any Tata Motors authorized works shop. As the vehicle was purchased on loan basis the complainant suffered heavy financial loss, mental and physical agony due to defect found in the vehicle and has filed this case praying for the reliefs alleging deficiency in service against the O.P.
3. O.P filed written version denying the allegation by stating that the complainant was not maintaining his vehicle properly by timely servicing, changing oil, water filling, greasing etc so there was no deficiency in service by the O.Ps but it was due to ill- maintenance of the vehicle by the complainant for which the engine was seized due to negligence of the complainant. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint as they are not liable.
4. After hearing of both the parties, Learned District Forum passed the following order:
“The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to repair the vehicle by replacing the required parts free of charges to the satisfaction of the complainant and make the vehicle road- worthy and pay to the complainant Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, harassment and financial loss along with Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses, which in our opinion will meet the ends of justice.
The O.Ps are to comply the order within one month failing which the awarded compensation and cost amount will carry interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of order till the date of payment. In case the O.ps failed to comply the order within the stipulated period, complainant to take steps for execution of the order as per law.
5. Learned counsel on behalf of appellant submitted that the Learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version & submission made by the OP in right perspectives. It is further contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the vehicle came for second service on 27-11-2008 when there was proper checkup and subsequently when the vehicle was brought again on 15-12-2018 it was found with less engine oil. It is the duty of complainant who is responsible for any filling of the engine oil properly. Though the service manual was available with the complaint for proper maintenance of the engine but he failed to do so. Since the complainant did not maintain his vehicle properly, hence there was no deficiency in service on the part of appellant and prayed for setting aside the impugned order. Learned counsel on behalf of appellant further submitted that the vehicle in question has been seized by the financer on 29-09-2010 with assistance of Ainthapally Police Station, Sambalpur which was duly intimated to the complainant.
6. Considered the submissions of appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
7. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-15-0488 on 29-02-08 from the appellant with finance from Cholamandalam Finance Company Ltd. It is also admitted fact that the complainant brought his vehicle for first and second service and the complainant has got service on 27-08-2008 and 27-11-2008 respectively. Only question arises whether the vehicle brought on 15-12-2018 with starting problem as observed by the appellant workshop that due to shortage of engine oil such seizure engine occurred can be considered as deficiency in service on the part of O.P.
8. The vehicle in question was purchased on 29-02-2008 and warranty period of said vehicle is 18 months from the date of purchase. Since vehicle was given for repair on 15-12-2008 which is well within the warranty period. The appellant /OP would have undertaken repair as per the warranty condition. When the last service was done on 27-11-2008 where OP found there was normal condition of the engine of the vehicle but it is not understood how there could be loss of engine oil to such an extent that the engine could seize for which OP refused to undertake the repair under warranty & normal warranty was rejected. Hence, non- undertaking of repair work with plea of normal warranty rejection is definitely amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Appellant. Learned District Forum has analyzed the case properly and rightly arrived at the conclusion and passed order which is just and proper.
8. In our considered opinion we do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the Learned District Forum. Thus while affirming the findings of the Learned District Forum, we confirm the impugned order.
9. As a result appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
10. Appellant is directed to comply the order of the District Commission within 60 days from the date of this order failing which awarded compensation and cost will carry @ 9 % interest from the date of this order till the date of payment.
11. Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or website of this Commission to treat same as if copy of order received from this commission.
12. DFR be sent back forthwith.
